J
justasking4
Guest
Before i can answer this its first necessary to understand a couple of things. When Jesus was teaching the people as recorded in the Gospels was His teaching at that moment authorative, inspired-inerrant?
- Status
J
justasking4
Guest
How does this follow from Sola Scriptura?
J
justasking4
Guest
We know it ended because the apostles all died out. Secondly, there is no such thing as an oral tradition that can be proven unless you accept the written Scriptures.
It was when it was first spoken.
They certainly used the OT to support their conclusions. See verses 15-21.
C
chosensinner
Guest
SO my question is this: What is meant by “Protestant” because now a days this label is too broad. I agree that not all Protestants practice the principle of Sola Scriptura.
Also- what is the Historic definition of Sola Scriptura- because so long as we allow Roman Catholics to define it for us, we will be witnessing nothing more than strawmen being blown down by their arguments.
Whoever made this thread (Eucharist) has a definition of “Sola Scriptura” in their mind- but what is that definition?
Whoever made this thread (Eucharist) has a definition of “Protestant” in their mind- but what is that definition?
Before these details are laid out before us- we would be foolish to rush into a defense of that which may need no defense. This sounds like a straw man argument to me.
M
Mea_Culpa
Guest
**OK, justasking4 or chosensinner - let me ask you, since no other sola scripturist has been able to answer -
Where is sola scriptura taught in the Bible?**
C
chosensinner
Guest
Again- until we establish what the Historical Protestant doctrine of Sola scriptura actually teaches- I cannot answer your vague question with all of it’s undefined terminology-
I am eager to converse with you on this topic- that is why I am here- But I want a Roman Catholic (one who denies Sola Scriptura) to first define it for me- so we can all see if we are even speaking about the same thing.
The last thing we want is to be mis-communicating. Let’s get our definitions right- and then we can talk about whether the Bible teaches it or not.
I did not start this thread- and so whoever did must define this doctrine before he opposes it- and he must define it accurately- or else he is building straw men.
P.S.- I am brand new on this forum- I am Chosensinner and I think you might be thinking that I am someone else- but I am not. Do I sound like another Protestant that you have spoken with? I hope so- this way I will know that there are other Protestants who are not foolish enough to debate over an undefined term.
A
anon52328184
Guest
i would like to ask what religion mea culpa professes to. his profile says n/a.
he seems to be quoting a lot of scripture. why is your religious affiliation n/a?
he seems to be quoting a lot of scripture. why is your religious affiliation n/a?
J
JRKH
Guest
J
JRKH
Guest
I had posted this definition earlier and no one challenged it, or adjusted it so it would appear this is the definition we are working off of.
So Chosensinner, I’d say your safe working from this definition.
Peace
James
P
pneuma07
Guest
Hi all,
If a lurker can join the party.
I wonder whether the doctrine of the “perspicuity of Scripture” is considered by protestant brothers here an essential part of the doctrine of SS. Well, after all, Scripture should be understood to get what we need from it. But what is exactly considered as “perspicuity” ?
Recently i have followed more or less this line of thought about this puzzling issue.
I started asking myself:
"Why had the Catholic Church, in a protestant view, not been understanding that Bible which she would deliver to the reformers - which in a protestant view is perspicuous - for more than a millennium ?
I supposed this could have something to do with the origin of the doctrine of the “perspicuity of Scripture”. In a recent thread i explored that in the follwing way.
STEP 1 Let’s say in XVI century western Europe I come to believe and propound a doctrine, or a whole doctrinary vision, which is at odds with catholic teaching.
STEP 2. I maintain and preach that my doctrine is rooted in Scripture ( and possibly has some alleged precedents in the fathers). This is quite necessary to my position.
STEP 3 I then necessarily conclude that you can understand Scripture outside the CONtext of the living Tradition of the Church and of her teaching. This amount to the fact that at this point I have so become a champion of the “perspicuity of Scripture”.
STEP 4 Now I start teaching that you have to approach Scripture outside and against the catholic Church, thus beginning to set a new CONtext, albeit just a negative one.
Let’s note that this further step is again necessary, if I want people to come to share my doctrine of which in STEP 1.
STEP 5 A new positive CONtext to properly read or hear Scripture is proposed by myself or by my successors.
It is so in STEP 3 that I propose the perspicuity of Scripture, by preaching that it is so clear that it does not need the CONtext of the living Tradition and the magisterium of the Church.
In STEP 4, nevertheless, I do put a first constraint of mine, which, let’s repeat, is necessary from my point of view in order to get it right in STEP 1, which is the origin of the whole matter.
Thus, STEP 4 is somehow common to any body which comes directly or indirectly from the Reformation.
We can consider it a common kernel of the prescriptions on the “perspicuity of Scripture”.
STEP 5, on the contrary, which is the positive part of the “new CONtext” is where the variety of definitions and prescriptions come up
With a range from the most “individualistic-minded” wing to the most “corporate-minded” one.
On the “corporate-minded” part of the range of the “perspicuities of Scripture”, we have a new CONtext which is essentially constituted by the traditions and teachings peculiar to a particular religious body, son or grandson of the Reformation. Paying due lip service to the individual reading and to a self-declaration of fallibility by the authorities within that body.
In other words this version says something like:
*"Scripture is so perspicuous that you can, ( indeed you have to) understand it outside the CONtext of the catholic tradition and teaching ( "“Sacred Tradition and Magisterium”, as roman catholics would say). . That is by no means to be caricatured so as to say that we believe Scripture is so perspicuous that you can properly understand it without the CONtext …of the teaching of our own religious body
( community). " *
The “individualisitic-minded” wing would instead say something like:
“Listen to no earthly teacher. Trust no man. Just read Scripture cover to cover, listening to the Holy Spirit, and anything essential will be clear”
To which considerations as the following ones can be replied:
TBC
If a lurker can join the party.
I wonder whether the doctrine of the “perspicuity of Scripture” is considered by protestant brothers here an essential part of the doctrine of SS. Well, after all, Scripture should be understood to get what we need from it. But what is exactly considered as “perspicuity” ?
Recently i have followed more or less this line of thought about this puzzling issue.
I started asking myself:
"Why had the Catholic Church, in a protestant view, not been understanding that Bible which she would deliver to the reformers - which in a protestant view is perspicuous - for more than a millennium ?
I supposed this could have something to do with the origin of the doctrine of the “perspicuity of Scripture”. In a recent thread i explored that in the follwing way.
STEP 1 Let’s say in XVI century western Europe I come to believe and propound a doctrine, or a whole doctrinary vision, which is at odds with catholic teaching.
STEP 2. I maintain and preach that my doctrine is rooted in Scripture ( and possibly has some alleged precedents in the fathers). This is quite necessary to my position.
STEP 3 I then necessarily conclude that you can understand Scripture outside the CONtext of the living Tradition of the Church and of her teaching. This amount to the fact that at this point I have so become a champion of the “perspicuity of Scripture”.
STEP 4 Now I start teaching that you have to approach Scripture outside and against the catholic Church, thus beginning to set a new CONtext, albeit just a negative one.
Let’s note that this further step is again necessary, if I want people to come to share my doctrine of which in STEP 1.
STEP 5 A new positive CONtext to properly read or hear Scripture is proposed by myself or by my successors.
It is so in STEP 3 that I propose the perspicuity of Scripture, by preaching that it is so clear that it does not need the CONtext of the living Tradition and the magisterium of the Church.
In STEP 4, nevertheless, I do put a first constraint of mine, which, let’s repeat, is necessary from my point of view in order to get it right in STEP 1, which is the origin of the whole matter.
Thus, STEP 4 is somehow common to any body which comes directly or indirectly from the Reformation.
We can consider it a common kernel of the prescriptions on the “perspicuity of Scripture”.
STEP 5, on the contrary, which is the positive part of the “new CONtext” is where the variety of definitions and prescriptions come up
With a range from the most “individualistic-minded” wing to the most “corporate-minded” one.
On the “corporate-minded” part of the range of the “perspicuities of Scripture”, we have a new CONtext which is essentially constituted by the traditions and teachings peculiar to a particular religious body, son or grandson of the Reformation. Paying due lip service to the individual reading and to a self-declaration of fallibility by the authorities within that body.
In other words this version says something like:
*"Scripture is so perspicuous that you can, ( indeed you have to) understand it outside the CONtext of the catholic tradition and teaching ( "“Sacred Tradition and Magisterium”, as roman catholics would say). . That is by no means to be caricatured so as to say that we believe Scripture is so perspicuous that you can properly understand it without the CONtext …of the teaching of our own religious body
( community). " *
The “individualisitic-minded” wing would instead say something like:
“Listen to no earthly teacher. Trust no man. Just read Scripture cover to cover, listening to the Holy Spirit, and anything essential will be clear”
To which considerations as the following ones can be replied:
- This is the illusion of “a-contextuality” ( minding: "no formal explanation = no CONtext ). But how can an a-contextual reading exist ? ( not to say that I would trust an earthly teaching by accepting the above mentioned invitation to read by myself cover to cover )
- Do I really really enjoy a heavenly guide and, above all, listen to it the right way ?
How can I know that, and therefore whether I did get sound interpretations, particularly in view of the different and stubborn conclusions by other brothers of mine, who claim precisely the same method and to listen to the same divine assistance ? Shall I say that “they are unable to listen to the Holy Spirit”, or “they are far from sharing my maturity” ( note here the inclusion, quite frequent, of the concept of maturity), or something even worse ?
TBC
L
lpp
Guest
I read through all 19 pages and I have not seen anyone give the exact chapter and verse in the bible that says “bible alone”. There were certainly a lot of verses from the bible, explanations, opinions, arguments, and links to some other website that someone has wrote about sola scriptura, but none of them give the exact chapter and verses.
Disclaimer: I am not knowledgeable in the bible or my own faith, I am just expressing my opinion after reading all 19 pages and after a few breaks to rest my eyes.
Disclaimer: I am not knowledgeable in the bible or my own faith, I am just expressing my opinion after reading all 19 pages and after a few breaks to rest my eyes.
P
pneuma07
Guest
Going On about Perspicuity
So, in a sense, i got an answer to my initial question.
The Catholic Church had not understood a perspicuous Scripture for over a millennium before Reformation, because the doctrine of perspicuity, in its common kernel, states precisely… that Scripture has to be approached outside the Catholic Church.
The puzzling fact remains, that it is a substantially different thing
saying that I am able to rebuild the whole of Christianity by a simple “cover to cover” reading of the sacred text, and saying this is more or less a caricature, and that I need after all the ministry
of the XY denomination, producing tons of sermons and commentaries.( mind yourself, just the XY, not the YZ, whose ministries could lead you astray ). It appears then, there are at least two “perspicuities” ( or better two principles of perspicuity) out there, producing any sort of mix between them.
But, why different “perpicuities”. ??
I mean, the perspicuity of Scripture should be …perspicuous.
Now, the real question besides the whole “perspicuity” issue, IMHO, is here:
"In what CONtext can (must) the sacred text be approached, how can it be a “live” text ?
The two main answers mentioned above can be summarized like this:
So, in a sense, i got an answer to my initial question.
The Catholic Church had not understood a perspicuous Scripture for over a millennium before Reformation, because the doctrine of perspicuity, in its common kernel, states precisely… that Scripture has to be approached outside the Catholic Church.
The puzzling fact remains, that it is a substantially different thing
saying that I am able to rebuild the whole of Christianity by a simple “cover to cover” reading of the sacred text, and saying this is more or less a caricature, and that I need after all the ministry
of the XY denomination, producing tons of sermons and commentaries.( mind yourself, just the XY, not the YZ, whose ministries could lead you astray
). It appears then, there are at least two “perspicuities” ( or better two principles of perspicuity) out there, producing any sort of mix between them.But, why different “perpicuities”. ??
I mean, the perspicuity of Scripture should be …perspicuous.
Now, the real question besides the whole “perspicuity” issue, IMHO, is here:
"In what CONtext can (must) the sacred text be approached, how can it be a “live” text ?
The two main answers mentioned above can be summarized like this:
- Pure perspicuity: the best Context is just …myself. With my assumptions, attitudes…
- Corporate or denominational perspicuity: the best CONtext is our denomination, with its ministry, traditions…
D
Des
Guest
I tell you what. How about YOU define it for us then PROVE your theory using explicit verses from the Bible.
Forget about what we think. You already know how we think about our own faith regarding the Church, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
C’mon, lets hear how you define ss and how you lead your life according to it. We’re all ears.
That definition you gave is what you believe yes?
R
Roy5
Guest
TWO QUICK POINTS
Code:
1. The books in the Protestant Old Testament are the same ones that you will find in any Jewish synagogue. Moreover, I believe St. Jerome did not believe that the apocryphal books should be included. (I could be wrong, but I believe I read that years ago.)
2. I don't understand how Christians of any flavor can consider the Bible inerrant. When I was a teenager I came across the story of Saul, being commanded by God to slaughter all the Amalekites. I simply did not believe that the God of love would order such genocide - ethnic cleansing in today's verbiage. Then I noted that Jericho was told by God to murder every one in Jericho except Rahab, a collaborator. And other crimes "ordered by God' are plentiful. No, sorry, my God would never do that. Can you image Christ giving such a command, the Prince of Peace who blessed the peacemakers?
When I have raised such questions with literalists, they are apt to tell me that my argument was with God not with them! Quite a dodge. Christians, Protestants and Catholics, need to get beyond the childish way of accepting such stories as true.
Those early myths - Adam and Eve, the Tower of Babel, Noah and the Ark - also are not to be taken literally. They are at best legends, or parables that carry certain lessons, but not history except - as in the case of Noah - possibly a smidgen of truth that was exaggerated.
Keep smiling.
A
anon52328184
Guest
so we can just pick and choose what is to be taken literally and not be taken literally? is that what you are saying? and who is it that decides which is literal and which is not?
D
Dannyc
Guest
To Chosensinner,
It took me awhile but I found the thread.
Thank you for your response.
Getting back to the early days, I certainly realize that the letters of Paul were in wide circulation and even Paul himself said to test everything with scripture, but do you think he was aware that he was writing scripture at the time?
There were many letters and gospels in circulation in the early Church( just ask Dan Brown), but it was the Church, I believe there was only one Church at the time, guided by the Holy Spirit, that selected the letters and books that we now refer to as the New Testament.
Would we not give some credence to the same Church that put our bible together as the same Church that received those keys to the kingdom and the power to bind and loose?
Or was that something that was given to all of us individually.
Would we have had a Reformation if we didn’t have a few bad popes and the printing press? Why was it that Calvin couldn’t agree with Luther and neither of them could agree with Zwingli and all the way down the road, no one could agree with anyone. If we just had the Lutheran denomination, I think I would have an easier time understanding the Protestant ideal.
If I were a Protestant, I would have a difficult time figuring out to which of the many thousands of denominations I should belong
Help me out here.
God bless,
DannyC
It took me awhile but I found the thread.
Thank you for your response.
Getting back to the early days, I certainly realize that the letters of Paul were in wide circulation and even Paul himself said to test everything with scripture, but do you think he was aware that he was writing scripture at the time?
There were many letters and gospels in circulation in the early Church( just ask Dan Brown), but it was the Church, I believe there was only one Church at the time, guided by the Holy Spirit, that selected the letters and books that we now refer to as the New Testament.
Would we not give some credence to the same Church that put our bible together as the same Church that received those keys to the kingdom and the power to bind and loose?
Or was that something that was given to all of us individually.
Would we have had a Reformation if we didn’t have a few bad popes and the printing press? Why was it that Calvin couldn’t agree with Luther and neither of them could agree with Zwingli and all the way down the road, no one could agree with anyone. If we just had the Lutheran denomination, I think I would have an easier time understanding the Protestant ideal.
If I were a Protestant, I would have a difficult time figuring out to which of the many thousands of denominations I should belong
Help me out here.
God bless,
DannyC
C
chosensinner
Guest
Absolutely! :yup:
I believe that if Peter was convinced that Paul’s writings were scripture- then Paul must have known as well. Listen to Peter:
“And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.” (2 Peter 3:15-18)
Also- just to add to it- we understand that Paul considered Luke’s writings to be Scripture as well- for he quotes Luke and says “the scripture saith.” And that passage that he quotes is found only in Luke- (not something repeated from the Old Testament). This is highly significant and should not be overlooked or brushed off.
"For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” (1 Timothy 5:18)
Paul says that the Scripture says:
- “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,” This is a passage of the Old Testament alluded to in 1 Corinthians 9.
- “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” This is a direct quote from Luke chapter 10 verse 7, and is not found in the Old Testament. This was recorded by Luke- and Paul considered it to be Scripture.
C
chosensinner
Guest
All I can say is this- even in the earliest congregations there were disagreements among true believers- Read Corinthians. This is not only a Protestant thing- but it is a human thing. We all fall short. But the simple fact is- on that last day, I will be accountable to God for myself- so will I take a chance in putting my trust in men to guide me, or will I search the scriptures for myself and try to serve God the best I can?
The Reformers were not trying to be popes, who would start their own religions and denominations- indeed if they saw the professing Evangelical Church today- they would be quite disturbed. The Reformers were not starting denominations and pointing people to themselves for salvation- NO! All of the Reformers were pointing poor men and women to the risen savior for the redemption of their souls.
Yes they disagreed on certain issues- like the Lord’s Table etc. BUT when it came to the way of Salvation- they were ONE- for the Bible is more than clear on this core issue- and that was their whole purpose; to loose the bonds of false religion and set the people free to seek the Lord for themselves, knowing that he who seeks the Lord with his whole heart shall find Him- and finding Him, they shall find true rest for their souls.
The word of God is precious and food for our souls. We need God’s word to be poured into us daily, and to remind us of certain truth. Let’s keep talking about this- but can I ask you to do something?
If you are willing- get onto a BIBLE SEARCH website and do a word-search in the Bible. Pick a good translation like the King James Version- and do a New Testament search of the word Scripture.
You will be shocked at how often the New Testament Saints, and our Lord himself would quote Old Testament Scripture in order to prove any and all points of contention. And if this is the way that they conducted themselves- then ought not we , who have the full deposit of Divine Revelation handed down to us in Holy Scripture do the same?
When we have a question about something- and there is a point of contention- ought not we to search the Scriptures until we find the answer? And when God is pleased to with-hold certain answers from us- ought not we to humble ourselves to the point of admitting that if the Lord has not revealed it- then He has kept it for Himself?
This is the spirit of a true Evangelical. If we are not certain and the Bible is not clear- then we are not to speculate or dogmatize; for this only brings division. We are to submit our minds and our hearts to the Lord our God, and hold tightly onto that which He has revealed to our souls through His word; and at the same time we are to walk in the fear of God with meekness and longsuffering toward our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
There are issues to divide over- and then there are issues to be humbled by. These need not cause division among God’s elect! And yet- we often experience this very division ourselves don’t we? However- I want you to understand this very well:
This is the Problem of Humanity- not Protestantism.
Division exists within Roman Catholicism as well does it not?
D
Dannyc
Guest
Chosensinner,
I belive, and correct me if I am wrong, Pauls writings existed well before any of the Evangeists, including Luke…not that Paul couldn’t have quoted Luke, but it is my understanding that if anyone was reading anyone else’s work, it would be vice-versa.
Of course there are divisions among Catholics, but when a bunch of women go off ordaining themselves, they then become outside the Church, are excommunicated and they join the ranks of the tens of thousands of Protestant denominations.
To where should a prespective Christian go? A church that started in 1965 by Chuck or by a Church started by Jesus Christ in 33AD?
I still need some help in figuring out who has more credibility.
I enjoy reading your responses.
God bless,
DannyC
I belive, and correct me if I am wrong, Pauls writings existed well before any of the Evangeists, including Luke…not that Paul couldn’t have quoted Luke, but it is my understanding that if anyone was reading anyone else’s work, it would be vice-versa.
Of course there are divisions among Catholics, but when a bunch of women go off ordaining themselves, they then become outside the Church, are excommunicated and they join the ranks of the tens of thousands of Protestant denominations.
To where should a prespective Christian go? A church that started in 1965 by Chuck or by a Church started by Jesus Christ in 33AD?
I still need some help in figuring out who has more credibility.
I enjoy reading your responses.
God bless,
DannyC
- Status